More thoughts on the Johannine epistles.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

More thoughts on the Johannine epistles.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I have been looking into the Johannine literature of late, and have been trying to figure out where 2 and 3 John fit in. So much of 2 John is directly related to the content of 1 John that obviously a genetic relationship between the two has to be taken into account. There is also the matter of the addressee(s), called "the elect/chosen lady" in the greeting. Verses 1-5 address this "lady" in the second person singular, but the rest of the epistle addresses people in the second person plural until verse 13, the final verse of this brief epistle, which reverts back to the second person singular. I believe this to be evidence of what most readers instinctively realize, to wit, that the "lady" is not an individual female believer, but is rather an ἐκκλησία ("church" or "assembly"), which is a feminine noun in Greek (refer to 3 John [1.]6, 9, 10). 1 Peter 5.12 does much the same thing: "She who is in Babylon, co-chosen/elect, sends you greetings, and my son, Mark, does too," where "she" seems to be the church in Babylon/Rome.

So here is the epistle of 2 John as a whole, with the second person pronouns, both explicit and implicit (in verb forms), marked out. Second person singulars are underlined. Second person plurals are boldfaced. If no Greek word follows in brackets, then the singular or plural comes from the form of the verb, not from a pronoun. Cross references to 1 John are also included; I gleaned these from the margins of my NASB Study Bible (a useful gift from a relative many years ago, one which said relative would have sincerely regretted, were she aware of the uses to which I have put it since that time):

1 The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth;a and not only I, but also all who know the truth, 2 for the sake of the truth which abides in usb and will be with us forever: 3 Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
  • a 1 John 3.18: 18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.
    b 1 John 1.8: 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
4 I was very glad to find some of your [σου] children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father. 5 Now I ask you [σε], lady, not as though I were writing to you [σοι] a new commandment,c but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning,d that you should walk in it.
  • c 1 John 2.7: 7 Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.
    d 1 John 3.11: 11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Refer also to 1 John 4.7, 11.
7 For many deceiverse have gone out into the world,f those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.g This is the deceiver and the antichrist.h 8 Watch yourselves [ἑαυτούς], that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.
  • e 1 John 2.26: 26 These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you.
    f 1 John 4.1: 1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. Refer also to 1 John 2.19.
    g 1 John 4.2-3: 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
    h 1 John 2.18: Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour.
9 Everyone who goes on ahead, and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.i 10 If anyone comes to you [ὑμᾶς] and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into the house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
  • i 1 John 2.23: 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
12 Though I have many things to write to you [ὑμῖν], I do not want to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you [ὑμᾶς] and speak face to face, so that [y]our [ὑμῶν/ἡμῶν] joy may be made full.j
  • j 1 John 1.4: 4 And these things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.
13 The children of your [σου] chosen sister greet you [σε].

There is no significant doctrinal content in this epistle which does not connect in some way to 1 John. The only verses which lack such a connection are direct instructions to the church (the "lady") as to how to treat or react to the doctrines, which are expressed incredibly briefly. I have elsewhere pointed out that the respective ways in which Irenaeus and the Muratorian Canon treat the Johannine epistles may point to an early textual situation in which 1 and 2 John were actually considered a single epistle. Some scholars have suggested that 2 John served as a cover letter for 1 John, but I think that 2 John [1.]12 may speak against such simplicity: "Though I have many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, so that your joy may be made full." I suppose a wordy author might consider even the five chapters of 1 John to be less than "many things to write," but I think another option, only slightly more complicated and still preserving the sense that 2 John served as a cover letter for 1 John at some point, presents itself: though the contents of 1 John were in existence (in some form) first, it was 2 John that was actually sent first, as a teaser, with a visit planned to teach things more fully; but either the visit never materialized and 1 John was sent in its place, or the visit did materialize and 1 John is a follow-up covering the key topics presented during the visit. A particular "chosen lady/church" was the recipient of both epistles, and bundled them together for later circulation, and they were treated as one for a time. 3 John, intended for a different church and a different situation, circulated separately at first before being lumped in (naturally) with the obviously related epistles of 1 and 2 John, at which point it made more sense to treat 2 John as distinct from 1 John.

Such are my thoughts on these epistles so far, at any rate. I know that Bernard regards the phrase "Christ as having come in the flesh" from 1 John 4.2 as a later interpolation based on 2 John, but I am not (yet) convinced. If it were, then this same phrase from 2 John [1.]7 would be, I think, the only significant doctrine in the epistle which did not mirror something from 1 John. This scenario so far seems less likely to me than that 2 John was composed with the doctrinal contents (whether already written down or not) of 1 John squarely in mind, and that this is the origin of the phrase about Christ having come in the flesh in verse 7 of 2 John. (1 John 4.3, incidentally, has a very complex manuscript transmission, one which needs to be looked into carefully, especially since Bernard's case for an interpolation in 4.2 rests mainly upon the lack of a corresponding phrase in 4.3.)

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: More thoughts on the Johannine epistles.

Post by Bernard Muller »

I find highly suspicious that the author of 2 John would plagiarize himself (from 1 John) so much.
Also in 2 John, there is no mention of "it is the last hour", probably suggesting that the author knew the last hour was long gone.
Finally, "Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh" fits well into the short epistle and it is the only thing the mentioned "deceivers" are said to oppose. That points to the Docetist era.

However, in 1 John, the letter seems aimed at those who do not accept Jesus as the Son of God & Christ (2:22-23, 3:23, 4:15, 5:1,5,10,12-13,20), probably Ebionites and possibly some Jewish Christians.
That means that "Christ has come in the flesh" in 4:2 stands out as rather doubtful as original, more so because it is not repeated in the negative form of the next verse. From that I highly suspect an interpolation.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: More thoughts on the Johannine epistles.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:I find highly suspicious that the author of 2 John would plagiarize himself (from 1 John) so much.
Also in 2 John, there is no mention of "it is the last hour", probably suggesting that the author knew the last hour was long gone.
Finally, "Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh" fits well into the short epistle and it is the only thing the mentioned "deceivers" are said to oppose. That points to the Docetist era.
What, for you, constitutes the "docetist era"?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: More thoughts on the Johannine epistles.

Post by Bernard Muller »

What, for you, constitutes the "docetist era"?
Basilides and Valentinus had Jesus having a supernatural body, but still born from Mary (in the manner of gLuke). See http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html then "find" on >> Basilides (120-140) <<
Cerdo might have been the very first complete Docetist. And of course Marcion was also a Docetist.
So I gave an approximate date of 140 CE which could be easily be +- 10 to 20 years. It could not have been much later because Irenaeus acknowledged the existence of 2 John.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: More thoughts on the Johannine epistles.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:
What, for you, constitutes the "docetist era"?
Basilides and Valentinus had Jesus having a supernatural body, but still born from Mary (in the manner of gLuke). See http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html then "find" on >> Basilides (120-140) <<
Cerdo might have been the very first complete Docetist. And of course Marcion was also a Docetist.
So I gave an approximate date of 140 CE which could be easily be +- 10 to 20 years. It could not have been much later because Irenaeus acknowledged the existence of 2 John.
So do you think that the apologists who assigned docetic beliefs to Simon Magus and to other early figures were simply mistaken? That they were off by more than half a century?

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.23.3 (Greek apud Hippolytus, Refutation 6.19.6): For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, [Simon] had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judea, when he had not suffered [ὡς καὶ ἄνθρωπον φαίνεσθαι αὐτὸν μὴ ὄντα ἄνθρωπον, καὶ παθεῖν δὴ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ δεδοκηκέναι καὶ μὴ πεπονθότα].

Jerome, Against the Luciferians 23: Cyprian of blessed memory tried to avoid broken cisterns and not to drink of strange waters: and therefore, rejecting heretical baptism, he summoned his African synod in opposition to Stephen, who was the blessed Peter's twenty-second successor in the see of Rome. They met to discuss this matter; but the attempt failed. At last those very bishops who had together with him determined that heretics must be rebaptized, reverted to the old custom and published a fresh decree. Do you ask what course we must pursue? What we do our forefathers handed down to us as their forefathers to them. But why speak of later times? While the apostles still survived in the world and while the blood of Christ was but lately shed in Judea, the Lord's body was asserted to be a phantom [adhuc apud Judaeam Christi sanguine recenti, phantasma Domini corpus asserebatur]; the Galatians had been led away to the observance of the law, and the Apostle was a second time in travail with them; the Corinthians did not believe the resurrection of the flesh, and he endeavoured by many arguments to bring them back to the right path. Then came Simon Magus and his disciple Menander. They asserted themselves to be powers of God. Then Basilides invented the most high god Abraxas and the three hundred and sixty-five manifestations of him. Then Nicolas, one of the seven Deacons, and one whose lechery knew no rest by night or day, indulged in his filthy dreams. I say nothing of the Jewish heretics who before the coming of Christ destroyed the law delivered to them: of Dositheus, the leader of the Samaritans who rejected the prophets: of the Sadducees who sprang from his root and denied even the resurrection of the flesh: of the Pharisees who separated themselves from the Jews on account of certain superfluous observances, and took their name from the fact of their dissent: of the Herodians who accepted Herod as the Christ. I come to those heretics who have mangled the Gospels, Saturninus, and the Ophites, the Cainites and Sethites, and Carpocrates, and Cerinthus, and his successor Ebion, and the other pests, the most of which broke out while the apostle John was still alive, and yet we do not read that any of these men were rebaptized.

Since the usual tendency seems to have been for the apologists and other church fathers to postpone the existence of heresy (to use the archaic term) until the apostolic succession was firmly in place, how do you treat this opposite tendency to assign docetism to such an early date?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: More thoughts on the Johannine epistles.

Post by Bernard Muller »

About Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.23.3:
For that, it is Simon Magus who claimed to have a Docetist body. I was talking about Docetism applied to Jesus.
Many Olympian gods (and also others) were also told to come down to earth or from down the sea, for various reasons, but most often to have sex with a human woman, in an "instant" Docetist human-like body of their choice. And even the OT has God transforming as a human in appearance and, for example, wrestling with Jacob (and loosing!). As also the angels coming down from heaven and taking in human form, in the OT and the NT.

About Jerome, Against the Luciferians 23:
I wonder from where Jerome got that, three centuries after the alleged facts? There is no corroborating evidence.
I guess that Jerome invented that to ridicule Docetists because, allegedly, early (Christian) Docetism would have started when there were still surviving eyewitnesses of Jesus (who could testify he was fully human).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: More thoughts on the Johannine epistles.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:About Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.23.3:
For that, it is Simon Magus who claimed to have a Docetist body. I was talking about Docetism applied to Jesus.
I guess part of it is that, precisely because divinities were so commonly thought to put on "seeming" bodies to visit humanity (as you point out), it is a bit hard for me to imagine that docetism waited for nearly a century to get started with respect to Jesus, whose divinity was asserted very early. I do not think that Jerome had any (or at least much) information that we do not have, but I think his instincts were quite possibly correct: I bet docetism came in a lot earlier than the year 125 or so, and may have come in just as soon as Jesus was thought to be divine in some way. If I found a trace of docetism (or anti-docetism) in a text, I do not think I would use 125 as the terminus post quem; I think I would look for other indications. (Luke 24.39 is certainly anti-docetic with regard to the resurrection body. If John 1.14 is not anti-docetic, it certainly proved a boon to the anti-docetists when the time came.)

ETA: Not to mention certain passages in the NT which may be docetic already ("in the form of a man").
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: More thoughts on the Johannine epistles.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:About Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.23.3:
For that, it is Simon Magus who claimed to have a Docetist body. I was talking about Docetism applied to Jesus.
I think the sense is that Simon claimed that it was actually he who was Jesus:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.23.1 (Greek apud Hippolytus, Refutation 6.19.6): This man, then, was glorified by many as if he were a god; and he taught that it was he himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit [ἀλλὰ φανέντα Ἰουδαίοις μὲν ὡς υἱὸν, ἔν δὲ τῇ Σαμαρείᾳ ὡς πατέρα, ἐν δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν ὡς πνεῦμα ἅγιον].

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.23.3 (Greek apud Hippolytus, Refutation 6.19.6): For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, [Simon] had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judea, when he had not suffered [ὡς καὶ ἄνθρωπον φαίνεσθαι αὐτὸν μὴ ὄντα ἄνθρωπον, καὶ παθεῖν δὴ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ δεδοκηκέναι καὶ μὴ πεπονθότα].

So, while it is true that the docetism applies to Simon, it seems to apply only with the proviso that Simon was the one suffering in Judea (in the person of Jesus). To put it another way, two distinct Simonian claims are on the table: (A) Simon was the son who suffered in Judea and (B) Simon did not really suffer, and was not really a man, but only seemed to be. Claim A does not nullify the docetism of claim B as it applies to the passion.

And the descent and transfiguration (to assimilate himself to the powers and angels) described here by Irenaeus sounds very much like the descent of the beloved in the Ascension of Isaiah, does it not? I do not have an elaborate argument at this stage defending the absolute veracity of Irenaeus on this point (though I think it is usually suspected that Irenaeus is getting his information from Justin); but I think it is something to consider. The same heresiologists who give us our information about Basilides' and Valentinus' beliefs are the ones giving us this information about Simon Magus.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: More thoughts on the Johannine epistles.

Post by Bernard Muller »

Overall, I don't think there was Christian Docetism in the first century. There is no reliable evidence for that.
In the case of Simon Magus, the impression I have is that Simon original claims had nothing to do with Christianity because the Christian stuff in them as reported by Irenaeus and others is very peripheral and looks like add-ons by later followers, when Christianity started to be popular in some area.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: More thoughts on the Johannine epistles.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 11:00 amThere is also the matter of the addressee(s), called "the elect/chosen lady" in the greeting. Verses 1-5 address this "lady" in the second person singular, but the rest of the epistle addresses people in the second person plural until verse 13, the final verse of this brief epistle, which reverts back to the second person singular. I believe this to be evidence of what most readers instinctively realize, to wit, that the "lady" is not an individual female believer, but is rather an ἐκκλησία ("church" or "assembly"), which is a feminine noun in Greek (refer to 3 John [1.]6, 9, 10). 1 Peter 5.12 does much the same thing: "She who is in Babylon, co-chosen/elect, sends you greetings, and my son, Mark, does too," where "she" seems to be the church in Babylon/Rome.
It is with amusement and interest that I note, months after having written this, that J. Rendel Harris once suggested that the "elect lady" in 2 John was an individual female recipient. He points to papyrus Oxyrhynchus 112, which Grenfell and Hunt translate as follows:

Greeting, my dear [κυρία] Serenia, from Petosiris. Be sure, dear [κυρία], to come up on the 20th for the birthday festival of the god [Serapis?], and let me know whether you are coming by boat or by donkey, in order that we may send for you accordingly. Take care not to forget, dear [κυρία]. I pray for your continued health.

The vocative κυρία literally means "lady" (the feminine counterpart to the vocative κύριε, "lord"), and Grenfell and Hunt are probably correct to detect in it a term of endearment. Harris also cites another papyrus letter in which a father uses the masculine term of his son.

It is, in fact, the feminine term which we find (in the dative case) in our Johannine epistle:

2 John [1.] 1-2: 1 The elder to the chosen lady [κυρίᾳ] and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth, 2 for the sake of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever: 3 Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

If this is a term of endearment ("dear"), then the lady would be an individual female recipient, and her children would probably be literal offspring.

I still think the "lady" is a church, partly because of the switch from singular to plural verbs and pronouns which I pointed out in the OP, not to mention the parallel in 1 Peter 5.12. The papyri in question date to a couple of centuries after either 1 Peter or 2 John; this issue would hardly be insurmountable, were the internal evidence strong enough, but in this case 1 Peter either predates 2 John or is roughly contemporaneous with it. And many Christians were in the habit of playing down ordinary biological and social relationships in favor of new versions of them in the church ("brother," "sister," "my son Mark").

But I do rather like the idea of the elder as a gentleman caller, and this lady as his special friend. :)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply